MA S TER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-80620-18 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  .      „    •    ^» 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia.  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


PRESCOTT,  HENRY  W 


TITLE: 


AMPHITRUO  OF 
PLAUTUS 

PLACE: 

[CHICAGO] 

DA  TE : 

[1913] 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


\t 


BIBLIOCR APHIC  MICROFORM  TARHFT 


*"     'P** 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


BK3/SAVE  Books 
Record  1  of  0  - 
+ 

ID:NYCa92-835092 
CC:9668  BL 1  ram 


FUL/BIB 
AVE  record 


NYCG92-B35092 


CP: ilu 
PC:s 

MMD: 
040 
100  1 

145  14 
260 
300 
LDQ 


DCP:? 
INI  :? 


RTYP:a 
C3C:? 
GPC:? 
REP:? 


3  r :  z 
MUD: 
BIO:? 
CPl:? 


L:eng 

PD:i913/ 

OR:  POL:  DM:  RR: 

NNCtcNNC 

Prescott:,    Henr^y   W. 
I  he   Aiiiphilnio   of    Plautusr  hi  nii  cr  of  or  m 

I  Chl(:.iqo,!(;19L3  I. 

14-22    p. 

URiCi 

OS-21-92 


FRM: 
SNR: 
f-IC:? 
FSI:? 
COL  : 


I 


Acquisitions 


NYCG-PT 


MS 


EL 


AlC: 


r 


CON:??" 
ILL:???? 

LML: 


AU:05-21-92 
UD:05-21-92 


II:? 
GEN: 


BSE: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: ^i^TMcfi..  REDUCTION     RATIO:        //-< 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  Qj^    yH     IID  .- 

DATE     FILMED:_^:y^::t3_    ._ INITIALS   __,  ____  ^^^ 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUDLIC/frlONS.  INC  WOODDRIDGE.  CT 


c 


Association  for  information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100, 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4        5        6 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


7        8        9       10       11 

iiiiliiiiliiiiLnhjiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


m 


12       13       14       15    mm 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


I  I  I 


Inches 


I  ITTT 


TTT 


1 


Ml 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


TTT 


m 

■  6.3 

1& 

IU1S.U 


2.8 
3.2 


4.0 


1.4 


2.5 
2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


TTTJTTT 

5 


MRNUFRCTURED  TO  fillM  STRNDRRDS 
BY  RPPLIED   IMRGE.    INC. 


Reprinted  from  Classical  Philology,  Vol.  VIII,  No.  1,  January,  1913 


THE  AMPHITRUO  OF  PLAUTUS 
By  Henry  W.  Prescott 

In  a  recent  article  {Gotting.  Nachricht.,  1911,  254  ff.)  Leo,  follow- 
ing suggestions  of  Kakridis  and  elaborating  hints  of  his  own  in  the 
first  edition  of  his  Plautinische  Forschungen,  has  set  forth  a  theory 
that  the  Amphitruo  is  the  result  of  a  contamination  of  two  Greek 
comedies;  by  this  theory  he  explains  seemingly  uneven  and  incon- 
sistent features  of  the  dramatic  structure.     Wilamowitz,   in  the 
course  of  a  study  of  Aristophanes'  Wasps  {Sitzb.  Berlin.  Akad.,  1911, 
485-86),  briefly  demurred;  weakness  in  details,  according  to  Wila- 
mowitz, may  be  explained  by  the  condition  of  our  text  of  Plautus, 
and  the  assumption  that  one  of  the  two  plays,  in  Leo's  theory, 
treated  the  conception  of  Heracles  (the  other  his  birth)  presupposes 
a  drama  which  leads  to  no  easily  imagined  dramatic  issue.    Wila- 
mowitz' remarks  were  so  brief  and  general,  however,  that  Leo  has  been 
able,  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Forschungen  (p.  185,  n.  2),  to  dismiss 
them  with  the  rejoinder  that  the  play  in  question  might  be  brought 
to  a  conclusion  by  the  appearance  of  Zeus,  and  that  the  details  in 
the  Amphitruo  are  not  the  disturbing  element:   it  is  the  weakness 
in  the  dovetailing  of  the  larger  essential  parts  that  supports  his 
theory  of  contamination. 

^  The  study  of  contamination  in  Plautus  is  regarded  with  dis- 
approval by  a  prominent  English  scholar  (cf.  Lindsay,  Burs.  Jahresb., 
130  [1906],  150),  and  one  must  admit  that  it  seldom  issues  in  mevitable 
conclusions;  but  the  by-products  of  such  study  are  of  no  little 
importance;  by  this  means  the  features  of  Plautus'  technique  are 
set  in  sharp  relief,  and  ultimately  by  comparative  study  of  the  plays, 
we  may  attain  results  of  value  to  the  history  of  Hellenistic  comedy 
as  a  literary  type.  But,  however  pertment  and  valuable  the  investi- 
gation may  be,  in  the  case  of  a  mythological  travesty  it  is  attended 
by  peculiar  difficulties:  every  mythological  travesty,  in  its  original 
Greek  form,  was  the  result  of  contamination-— a  contamination  of 
the  myth  (usually  a  literary  treatment  of  the  myth)  with  comic 

IClassical  Philology  VIII,  January,  1918]     14 


The  "Amphitruo"  of  Plautus 


15 


elements.  The  real  weaknesses  in  the  structure  of  the  Amphitruo 
would  be  found  in  the  single  play  which,  m  my  view,  was  translated 
or  adapted  by  Plautus;  these  weaknesses  result  inevitably  so  soon  as 
the  myth  is  dramatized,  and  may  well  be  increased  so  soon  as  the 
dramatized  myth  is  combined  with  the  motives  of  a  comedy  of 
errors  for  the  purposes  of  a  mythological  travesty.  But  to  the  real 
weaknesses  Leo  has  added  a  structural  defect  which  I  hope  to  show 
is  the  product  merely  of  his  own  imagination. 


The  starting-point  of  Leo's  theory  is  the  fact  that  the  presupposi- 
tions and  the  conclusion  of  the  Amphitruo  cannot  be  reconciled  with 
the  "long  night"  which  is  mentioned  in  the  prologue  (113),  in  the 
first  scene  (270-90),  and  in  the  parting  of  Alcmena  and  Juppiter  (546- 
50).  Amphitruo  left  Alcmena  with  child;  at  the  opening  of  the  play 
she  is  pregnant  with  a  seven-months  child  by  Juppiter;  the  play 
concludes  with  the  birth  of  two  sons.  With  this  action  the  "long 
night"  is  incompatible;  for  the  vif^  fiaxpd  is  properly  the  wedding- 
night  of  the  god,  and  to  make  it  immediately  precede  the  day  of 
birth  "ist  ein  Unding."  It  might,  of  course,  be  argued  that  these 
eircimistances  were  so  combined  to  satisfy  the  sense  of  humor  of  a 
far  from  refined  audience — such  an  audience,  for  example,  as  found 
entertainment  in  the  Greek  original  of  Plautus'  Casina.  But  Leo 
might  respond  that  in  the  Amphitruo  there  is  not  the  slightest  indica- 
tion of  any  grossly  comic  intention;  the  comic  effects  are  produced 
by  the  motives  of  the  comedy  of  errors;  there  is,  to  be  sure,  buffoonery 
like  that  of  vss.  664-74,  but  there  is  no  emphasis  upon  any  comic  ele- 
ment in  the  relation  of  the  long  night  to  Alcmena's  condition.  One 
might  even  suspect  that  this  combination  of  events  was  from  a 
tragic  source,  though,  from  a  modem  standpoint,  it  is  difficult  to 
imagine  a  tragic  drama  constructed  on  such  lines. 

It  is  quite  impossible  to  restore  any  of  the  ancient  tragedies  on 
Alcmena  and  Amphitruo  from  the  fragments  of  plays  or  from  the 
references  ir  ancient  literature.  That  the  long  night  was  at  times 
included  in  the  tragic  action  is  clear:  so  much  may  fairly  be  inferred 
from  the  well  known  passage  of  Ovid's  Tristiay  unless  one  regards  the 
pertinent  phrase  as  mere  periphrasis  for  the  hero's  name: 


> 


i 


16  Henry  W.  Prescott 

omne  genus  scripti  gravitate  tragoedia  vincit: 
haec  quoque  materiam  semper  amoris  habet. 

quid  Danaen  Danaesque  nurum  matremque  Lyaei 
Haemonaque  et  noctes  quae^  coiere  duasf  (ii.  381-82,  401-2). 

If  the  vase-painting2  regarded  by  archaeologists  as  suggested  by  a 
tragedy,  and  perhaps  by  Euripides'  tragedy,  is  accepted  as  evi- 
dence,  the  appearance  of  Eos  in  the  scene  of  Alcmena's  rescue  from 
Amphitruo  by  Zeus  must  point  to  early  morning  as  the  tune  of 
the  action,  and,  as  the  action  is  the  climax  or  catastrophe,  the  presence 
of  Eos  presupposes  earlier  action  in  the  preceding  night  and,  pre- 
sumably, the  long  night.     Finally,  the  Ni>f  MaKpd  of  the  comic 
poet  Plato  may  suggest  that  the  tragic  material  which  it  parodied 
covered  the  long  night.     Even  in  Plautus'  play  the  impressive  dig- 
nity with  which  Juppiter  dismisses  the  long  night  (546-50)  perhaps 
comes,  ultimately,  from  a  tragic  source.    The  pv^  /laKpd  was  primarily 
the  night  of  generation  and  foreboded  the  strength  of  the  heroic 
Heracles:  Diod.  iv.  9.  2;  Lucian,  Dial.  Dear,  x;  Ovid,  Her,  ix.  9 
(".  .  .  .  nox  ....  una nontantiuttantusconcipererefuit");  Seneca, 
Agam.  824  ("sensit  ortus,  sensit  occasus  Herculem  nasci:  violentus 
ille  nocte  non  una  poterat  creari");  Here,  23  (where  ortus  is  to  be 
interpreted  by  nasa  ....  creari  in  the  Agamemnon),   Nor  can  there 
be  any  doubt,  I  think,  that  Leo's  answer  to  Wilamowitz'  objection 
(that  the  drama  on  the  generation  of  Heracles  "ist  gar  nicht  zu  Ende 
zu  denken")  is  sufficient;  the  appearance  of  Zeus  would  bring  about 
a  solution  of  the  difficulties  and  a  dramatically  impressive  conclusion; 
indeed,  the  opening  sentences  of  Apollodorus'  account  of  the  myth 
{Bibl,  ii.  4.  8)  would  serve  as  a  description  of  a  good  plot:    Z€v<; 
&a  PVKTO^:  i\Oa)v  Kal  rr/v  fiiav  TpL7r\a<nd(Ta<:  vvfcra  ofjLoco<:  *AfjL(l>iTpvcopt 
y€p6p^po<:  *A\fCfiijp7j  avprjvpdadrt  Koi  r^  y€p6fi€Pa  irepl  TrjXefio&p  Sir)- 
yna-aro,     *AfM<f>LTpvQ)p  Be  irapayepofiepo^  m  ovx  iiopa  (fyiXo^popov- 
fiePTjp  7r/>09  avTOP  rrjp  yvpacfca  iirvpOdpeTO  rrjp  air  tap-   eiirov<Tr)^  Be 
OTi  ry  Trporepaia  pvktI  7rapay€p6fjLepo<i  avry  avy/ceKOifiTjTai,  fiapddpei 
irapa  Teipealov  rrjp  yepofieprjp  tov  Ato?  avpovaiap 

» According  to  Owen's  apparatus  this  is  the  reading  of  aU  the  MSS  (except  L,  which 
has  gui  for  quae) ;  but  many  modern  editors  since  Heinsius  accept  the  emendation  nodes 
cu%  coiere  auae. 

rr  „'C^-  Engelmann  Beitr.  zu  Euripides  I,  Alcmene  (Berlin,  1882);  Murray  Joum 
Hellen  Stud-  XI.  225  S.,  and  Plate  VI.     Murray,  however,  thikks  the  v^TZw^^l 
ship  with  the  Apuhan  vases,  and  suggests  the  influence  of  later  tragedy  in  southern 
italy.    In  general  cf.  Roscher  Myth.  Lexikon,  and  PWRE.,  s.v.  "Alkmene." 


The  "Amphitruo"  of  Plautus 


17 


If  the  absence  of  Teiresias  in  an  active  rdle  from  Plautus*  play 
(but  cf.  1128,  1145)  requires  us  to  imagine  another  expounder  and 
prophet,  obviously  Zeus  himself  would  satisfy  all  the  demands  of  the 
situation.  The  birth,  then,  in  such  a  tragedy  was  probably  foretold 
in  connection  with  an  explanation  of  the  dilemma. 

Nor  is  it  difficult  to  imagine  a  second  type  of  tragedy  in  which 
the  birth  is  announced  as  an  accomplished  fact,  with  an  account  of  the 
strangling  of  the  serpents;  to  that  extent  the  birth  becomes  part  of 
the  dramatic  action.    The  splendid  effect  of  the  action  of  the  Amphit- 
ruo  1052,  at  which  pomt  Amphitruo  is  struck  down  by  a  thunderbolt 
and  discovered  by  Bromia  in  the  midst  of  her  excited  announce- 
ment of  the  birth  and  the  strangling  of  the  serpents,  can  hardly  have 
come  from  any  but  a  tragic  source;  and  the  whole  of  the  last  three 
acts  constitutes  a  unit  of  uninterrupted  action,  as  Leo  sees,  and 
essentially  tragic  without  any  emphasis  upon  the  motives  of  the 
comedy  of  errors.     This  unity  is  anticipated  in  the  prologue-speech  of 
Juppiter  at  the  opening  of  the  third  act  when  he  appears  "ne  banc 
incohatam  transigam  comoediam'*  (868).     In  such  a  tragedy  the 
long  night  of  generation  might  well  have  been  among  the  presupposi- 
tions stated  in  the  prologue,  but  it  will  be  observed  that  the  action 
would  require  a  visit  from  Zeus  immediately  preceding  Amphitruo's 
return  m  order  to  provide  the  dramatic  complications;  such  a  night 
might  conceivably  be  not  the  long  night  of  generation  but  a  night, 
long  or  short,  of  dalliance.    In  other  words  I  should  exactly  reverse 
Wilamowitz'  criticism  of  Leo:   I  find  it  easy  "to  think  out  to  the 
end"  a  plot  in  which  the  night  of  conception  is  part  of  the  action; 
I  find  it  difficult  to  imagme  the  beginning  of  a  plot  that  issues 
in  the  birth,  unless  that  plot  includes  in  the  early  part  of  the 
action  a  visit   from   Zeus  by  night;  and  once  that  condition  is 
satisfied,  I  feel  that  there  is  some  difficulty  in  introducing  a  night 
that  is  differentiated  from  the  long  night  of  the  myth.     It  may  be 
noted  that  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  serious  dignified  presenta- 
tion of  a  tragedy  m  which  the  conception  is  presupposed,  the  long 
night  as  a  night  of  dalliance  introduced,  and  the  birth  reported 
as  an  accomplished  fact  at  the  end  are  difficulties  that  a  tragic  poet 
might  at  least  alleviate  by  brief  reference  to  the  conception  in  the 
prologue  and  by  minimizing  the  element  of  voluptas  in  the  action;  the 


18 


Henry  W.  Prescott 


t 


impressiveness  of  Amphitruo  546-50  and  of  the  action  at  1052  is 
essentially  tragic;  one  belongs  to  a  plot  involving  the  long  night,  the 
other  to  a  plot  of  Heracles'  birth;  that  they  come  from  one  and  the 
same  tragedy  is,  of  course,  not  incontestable. 

But  whatever  difficulties  a  tragic  poet  might  have  met  in  com- 
bmmg  the  long  night  with  the  plot  of  birth,  no  comic  poet  need  have 
been  troubled  by  the  resulting  complications.  To  any  poet  the 
possibilities  arising  from  a  combination  of  the  long  night  with  the 
birth  must  have  made  a  strong  appeal.  The  picturesque  and  the 
dramatic  effects  of  the  long  night,  the  thunder-storm,  the  bui;h,  and 
the  strangling  of  the  serpents,  although  one  or  two  of  them  may  be 
sufficient  for  any  single  drama,  become  tremendously  effective  when 
combined  in  one  play;  and  at  least  in  a  comedy  the  complications 
which  lead  Leo  to  call  the  combmation  an  "Unding"  cannot  be 
considered  for  a  moment  in  comparison  with  the  dramatic  advantage 
offered  by  the  combmation,  and  illustrated  even  in  Plautus  by  the 
conclusion  of  the  first  act  and  the  action  at  1052. 

In  brief  I  must  deny  that  there  is  anything  inevitable  in  Leo's 
ascribing  to  Plautus  the  merging  of  the  long  night  with  material 
that  is  alien  to  it.    Any  Greek  poet— comic  poet  if  you  insist— would 
be  more  naturally  tempted  than  Plautus  (whose  sensitiveness  to 
dramatic  effects  is  certainly  not  easily  established)  to  make  this 
combination.    The  myth  supplies  a  long  night  of  generation  and  a 
birth  at  a  natural  interval;  but  once  the  poet,  tempted  by  dramatic 
possibilities,  combines  the  two  elements,  an  inevitable  result  follows: 
the  normal  limitation  of  dramatic  action  to  twenty-four  hours  leaves 
the  poet  an  option  between  (1)  keeping  the  long  night  as  a  night  of 
generation  and  making  the  birth  a  miraculous  birth  on  the  following 
day,  and  (2)  changing  the  long  night  to  a  night  of  dalUance,  and  setting 
back  the  generation  so  that  the  birth  may  follow  naturally  on  the 
morning  after  the  long  night.    The  second  of  these  two  alternatives 
was  chosen  by  the  poet  of  the  Greek  original  of  the  Amphitruo, 

II 

Although  the  starting-point  of  Leo's  theory  is  far  from  inevitable, 
he  seems  to  have  made  out  a  strong  case  in  his  analysis  of  ii.  1,  and  ii.  2, 
in  their  relation  to  i.  3— at  least  if  the  reader  of  the  play  conceives 


The  "Amphitruo"  op  Plautus 


19 


20 


the  scene-setting  as  Leo  does.  In  his  view  these  two  scenes  are 
essentially  repetitions  of  each  other:  both  take  place  before  the 
house  of  Alcmena;  in  the  first  Amphitruo  arrives  with  Sosia,  scolding 
his  slave,  doubtmg  the  slave's  story  of  Mercury's  presence;  at  the 
end  of  the  scene  he  enters  the  house  to  test  the  truth  of  Sosia's  state- 
ments, accompanied  by  Sosia  (Leo  rejects  629-32  as  a  later  addition) ; 
Alcmena  appears  and  deHvers  her  monody  (633  ff .) ;  m  the  following 
dialogue  Amphitruo  and  Sosia  are  again  present;  they  appear  not 
to  have  heard  the  monody;  Amphitruo  makes  no  reference  to  the 
previous  action;  the  scene  seems  to  mark  their  first  arrival  at  the 
house,  duplicatmg  ii.  1 ;  the  first  scene  continues  the  comedy  of  errors; 
the  second  has  no  organic  connection  with  the  comedy  of  errors. 

Before  offering  a  different  explanation  of  the  situation,  I  must 
express  a  mild  dissent  upon  some  details  of  Leo's  contention.     The 
monody  of  Alcmena  in  his  view  is  unique:  it  is  contrary  to  the  usual 
practice  that  Amphitruo  and  Sosia  should  not  hear  this  monody  or 
refer  to  it  in  any  way,  or  (as  Leo  neglects  to  say)  that  Alcmena  should 
not  at  the  end  of  her  monody  note  the  presence  of  the  other  two  and, 
with  or  without  a  slight  interval,  accost  them  or  be  accosted  by  them. 
This  failure  to  note  their  presence  is  the  more  noticeable  defect; 
for  otherwise  the  situation  is  not  very  different  from  Bacch,  385  ff. 
compared  with  405  ff.  or  Persa  52  ff.  compared  with  81  ff.;  and  in 
Bacch,  169  ff.  compared  with  179  ff.  Chrysalus  delivers  his  mono- 
logue (to  be  sure,  of  a  special  type)  and  notes  the  presence  of  Pisto- 
clerus  (who,  in  my  understanding  of  the  action,  left  the  stage  at 
169,  and  comes  out  of  the  house  of  Bacchis  at  179)  only  at  182.    I 
venture  to  suggest  that  the  essential  difference— the  failure  to  note 
the  arrival  of  Amphitruo  and  Sosia— is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
passage  is  an  emotional  aria  like  that  of  Philolaches  in  the  Mostellana, 
and  the  prosaic  announcement  of  the  presence  of  Amphitruo  and 
Sosia  less  appropriate;   shnilarly  Philolaches  does  not  mention  the 
presence  of  the  two  women  till  they  have  begun  their  conversation. 
Again,  Leo  remarks  (p.  256)  that  the  monody  of  Alcmena  cannot 
originally  have  stood  before  the  dialogue  that  begins  at  654;   as  he 
reconstructs  the  original  (p.  257),  after  Juppiter's  departure  in  550 
(Mercury  left  the  stage  at  543)  Alcmena  remamed  on  the  stage  and 
expressed  her  grief  at  bemg  so  soon  separated  from  her  lover.     In 


Henry  W.  Prescott 


t 


I 

T 


this  way  Leo  suggests  the  mtimate  relation  between  i.  3  and  ii.  2, 
and  the  interruption  occasioned  by  ii.  1.    This  intimate  relation  I 
do  not  question,  but  what  becomes  of  the  dramatic  effect  of  Juppiter's 
dignified  dismissal  of  the  long  night  in  546-50  (marking  the  end  of  a 
fiepo^  in  Leo's  own  scheme  of  fieprj  in  Der  Monohg,  p.  61)  if,  instead 
of  marking  the  end  of  a  /lepo?,  it  feebly  issues  into  a  pathetic  monody 
followed  without  interval  by  a  dialogue  scene  ?    Are  there  not  obvious 
dramatic  advantages  in  ending  a  /tepo?  with  the  dismissal  of  the  long 
night  by  Juppiter,  and  in  accentuating  this  climax  by  resummg  after 
it  the  action  of  the  comedy  of  errors  in  ii.  1,  deferring  to  ii.  2  the 
transition  to  tragic  action  ?    And  who  is  more  likely  to  be  sensitive  to 
these  niceties  of  dramatic  technique  ?    Plautus  or  his  Greek  original  ? 
But,  apart  from  these  reservations,  I  should  have  to  accept  Leo's 
argument  if  I  conceived  the  action  of  these  two  scenes  as  he  does; 
and  I  might  even  strengthen  his  case  by  pointing  out  the  repetition 
of  sequere  hoc  in  660  and  674  after  the  sequere  hoc  of  628;  apparently 
the  case  is  obvious:  we  have  two  versions  of  Amphitruo's  first  arrival 
at  home,  clumsily  juxtaposed  in  the  process  of  contamination. 

Unhappily  Leo  has  misconceived  the  entire  situation:  in  his  view 
ii.  1  takes  place  before  or  m  close  proximity  to  the  house  of  Alcmena; 
but  he  can  hardly  have  noted  significant  phrases  in  ii.  1  which  clearly 
indicate  that  the  action  takes  place  at  a  considerable  distance  from 
Alcmena's  house.     If  the  action  occurs  before  Amphitruo's  home 
what  possible  sense  can  be  extracted  from  his  threat  m  583  ff.:   "at 
tie  ego  faciam  hodie  promde  ac  meritus  es,  ut  minus  valeas  et  miser 
sis,  salvos  domum  si  rediero:  iam  sequere  s^sf "    Obviously  Amphit- 
ruo has  not  returned  home  and  is  not  very  near  to  it  if  he  may  say 
conditionally,  ''salvos  domum  si  rediero";    there  are  .some  risks, 
imaginary  but  plausible,  before  he  can  reach  home.    And  if  Sosia 
is  standing  near  the  very  house  that  he  attempted  to  enter  the  night 
before,  why  in  603  does  he  say  "prius  multo  ante  aedis  stabam  quam 
illo  adveneram"  ?     Why  not  ''hue  adveneram"  ?     In  613  why  does 
Sosia  say:    "Sosiam  servom  tuom  praeter  me  alterum,  mquam, 
adveniens  faciam  ut  offendas  domi "  ?    Why  the  conditional  participle 
or  temporal  participle  adveniens  if  he  has  already  got  within  sight  of 
the  house  ?    And  has  not  587  ("nunc  venis  etiam  ultro  mrisum  domi- 
num")  the  proper  force  only  in  case,  after  his  misadventure  at 


The  "Amphitruo**  op  Plautus 


21 


the  house  of  Alcmena,  Sosia  has  returned  to  the  harbor  and  at  the 
harbor,  or  between  the  harbor  and  the  house,  is  now  addressing 
Amphitruo  in  this  scene  ?  Finally  if  they  are  already  at  home  what 
possible  point  is  there  in  the  clear  contrasts  of  562  and  593 :  "  scelestis- 
sume,  audes  mihi  praedicare  id,  domi  te  esse  nunc  qui  hie  ades  (562) ; 
quo  id,  malum,  pacto  potest  ....  fieri,  nunc  uti  tu<et>  hie  sis  ei 
domi"  (593)?  That  they  are  near  or  at  the  harbor  is  clear  from 
the  verses  629-32,  which  Leo,  in  his  misconception  of  the  situation, 
has  ejected  from  the  text  because  they  seem  to  suggest  that  Sosia 
is  sent  baek  to  the  ship;  certainly  they  are  difficult  verses  if  the  action 
occurs  before  the  house  of  Alcmena;  but  if  the  speakers  are  at  the 
ship  already,  the  lines  become  absolutely  pertinent,  and  Leo's  "  hier 
wird  die  Sachlage  getnibt"  (p.  255,  n.  i)  turns  out  to  be  only  a  con- 
fession of  his  own  unnecessary  mystification. 

In  brief,  the  action  is  as  follows:  at  550  the  long  night  is  dis- 
missed; the  scene  changes;  we  are  at  the  harbor;  Sosia  has  returned 
after  his  encounter  with  Mercury  (cf.  460)  and  reported  to  Amphit- 
ruo; Amphitruo  refuses  to  believe  the  story  and  abuses  Sosia; 
Amphitruo  is  about  to  start  for  home,  and  orders  Sosia  to  accompany 
him  (551:  "age  i  tu  secundum,"  and  Sosia's  reply:  "sequor,  sub- 
sequor  te").  But  the  two  delay  to  indulge  in  abuse  and  attempted 
explanation  until  628  when  Amphitruo,  making  a  new  start,  says: 
"sequere  hac  igitiu"  me,  nam  mi  istuc  primum  exquisito  est  opus." 
He  must  go  home  and  look  into  the  matter;  but  he  wishes  to  take 
home  the  trophies,  especially  the  eistellula  (cf .  773)  containing  the 
(xurea  patera  of  the  king,  Rerela,  whom  he  has  conquered;  so  he  says 
to  Sosia  (629) :  "sed  vide  ex  navi  ecferantur  quae  imperavi  omnia." 
Sosia,  however,  has  not  forgotten  his  orders,  and  while  he  is  stating 
this  fact  (630-31)  a  train  of  slaves  appears  bearing  the  baggage 
(cf.  "due  hos  intro,"  854);  Amphitruo,  Sosia,  and  the  slaves  leave 
the  harbor  as  Amphitruo  remarks:  "utinam  di  faxint  infecta  dicta 
re  eveniant  tua"  (632).  The  scene  now  changes;  we  are  again 
before  the  house  of  Alcmena;  she  appears  and  delivers  her  monody; 
in  the  course  of  it,  or  toward  the  end,  the  party  that  left  the  harbor 
at  632  appears  before  the  house;  without  noticing  the  presence  of 
Alcmena,  Amphitruo  expresses  the  belief  that  he  will  be  welcomed  by 
his  wife  (654  ff.) ;  they  stop  at  some  distance  from  the  door;  Amphitruo 


22 


Henry  W.  Prescott 


urges  Sosia  on  ("sequere  hac,"  660);  Sosia  sees  Alcmena  (664  ff.), 
who  has  already  discovered  them  (660) ;  but  Amphitruo's  eyes  are 
turned  in  a  different  direction,  and  he  does  not  discover  her  until  she 
comes  to  meet  him  (675-76) ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  consequent 
action  that  conflicts  with  the  sketch  that  I  have  drawn;  the  eistellula 
and  the  slaves  (854)  have  been  accounted  for  in  our  description  of  ii.l. 
Nor  need  Leo  any  longer  be  surprised  that  ii.  2  contains  no  reference 
to  the  matter  of  ii.  1 ;  the  more  important  complications  introduced 
in  683  by  Alcmena's  casual  remark  make  the  confusion  in  the  Sosia- 
Mercury  doublet  of  secondary  interest  as  compared  with  the  ques- 
tion. Who  is  Amphitruo's  double? 

I  think  any  reader  will  see  that  this  was  the  action  mtended 
by  the  poet;  it  solves  at  once  all  the  difficulties  that  Leo  has  foisted 
upon  the  text.  When  Ussmg^  introduced  the  scene  ii.  1  with  the 
comment  "nova  scena  non  ante  aedes  Alcmenae  agitur,  sed  prope 
naves,"  etc.,  he  destroyed,  without  knowing  it,  Leo's  theory  of 
contamination.  I  am  glad  that  I  need  not  be  held  responsible  for 
such  a  disposal  of  this  ingenious  if  mistaken  interpretation  of  one 
with  whom  every  student  of  Plautus  seldom  disagrees,  and  then 
only  with  reluctance. 

Leo  will  hardly  expect  a  consideration  of  the  details  of  his  argu- 
ment; he  has  admitted  in  his  answer  to  Wilamowitz  that  it  is  not  a 
matter  of  details  but  of  "das  Gefuge  des  Stuckes."  Nor,  I  hope, 
will  anybody  question  my  interpretation  because  this  changing  of 
scene  is  unique.  Such  change  of  scene  is  Aristophanic;^  mythological 
travesty  belongs  to  the  Old  Comedy  and  to  the  transition  period 
from  Old  to  New;  this  unique  element  is  not  to  be  questioned  because 
of  its  isolation;  it  means  simply  that  the  Amphitruo  is  the  most 
important  document  that  we  possess  (with  the  Persa)  for  recon- 
structing the  antecedents  of  the  New  Comedy  of  Hellenistic  Athens. 

Untversitt  op  Chicago 

lUssing  marred  his  interpretation  by  rejecting  vss.  629-31  on  grounds  that  Langen 
(Plautin.  Studien,  237)  found  to  be  invaUd.  Palmer  says:  "Amphitruo  ....  is  on 
his  way  from  the  harbor  to  his  home." 

*  It  is  at  present  immaterial  how  the  change  of  scene  was  managed;  but  it  should 
be  noted  that  if  the  interpretation  above  is  convincing  and  the  scenes  appeared  in  the 
Greek  original,  the  question  whether  there  was  a  change  of  background  in  the  supposed 
changes  of  scene  in  the  Old  Comedy  can  hardly  be  considered  in  future  without  includ- 
ing the  pertinent  material  in  the  Amphitruo. 


I 


